Religion Versus Spirituality

Although religion and spirituality can go hand in hand, it's surprising how often the two are divorced. Can one be religious in a real sense without being spiritual? Possibly, though I suppose it's not as easy as it might seem.

Perhaps if one has doubts and works at understanding the issues and honestly observes the forms without distorting the forms, one could be called religious without having spirituality. Literature is full of priests who never quite felt the spiritual dimension but who still felt strongly connected to their religion. But more common are preachers and priests who may or may not have being moved initially by their religion but who eventually abuse their office while observing the forms of religion, at least in the eyes of officialdom. I recently read The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Hugo has no patience for church figures as well as the king. The book opens with a play with religious observances being interrupted by the pomp and ceremony of the top religious officials entering the building. The mob finds the pomp and ceremony more entertaining. Though not necessarily religious in the typical sense, the two most spiritual figures in Hugo's book are Quasimodo and La Esmeralda. In the end, one is hanged for capricious reasons and the other dies of despair.

New studies show that religion in the United States, or at least formal observance of religion, is on the decline. Even the fundamentalists are declining in numbers. To be honest, I'm not sure I understand the latest developments. Maybe everyone is tired of meaningfulness and just want a castle with three rooms, central heating and a dishwasher. That would be a sad development but not the first or last time people have turned away from religion. Barbara O'Brien in her regular column on Buddhism has observed this:

You can find no end of speculation about why the mainline Protestant churches went into such a steep decline. My take on it, for what it's worth -- first, as I remember it, in the 1950s and 1960s "going to church" was sold to us as one more thing we "should" do, like eating vegetables. But with the mainline Protestants especially, for many there seemed to be no compelling reason why, and younger people lost interest. I understand something like this is going on with Japanese Buddhism now. I suspect the fault is not in the religion but in a kind of institutional inertia. It can happen to any organization.

Anyway, evangelicals had less of a problem with exiting boomers because they had a more assertive message, reaching out to people who were troubled, telling them Jesus was the answer to their personal pain. In comparison, mainline Protestantism seemed something like spiritual dental floss.

The 1950s, as I recall them, was an age of excessive materialism. It was understandable given the Great Depression of the 1930s and the global conflicts of the 1940s. It was a time of rebuilding without much desire to think about anything except the mortgage and how to get a raise.

In the 1960s, young people wanted to turn away from materialism but didn't quite succeed and before they knew it they were settling in larger and larger homes by the 1980s. Where are we now? Are we again turning away from materialism? If so, it's not necessarily towards formal religion or even an informal spirituality. People are turning towards the inanity of the Internet and information technology. But that's not quite fair. There are a growing number of people genuinely concerned about the environment, nature and sustainability.

You can't interface with nature the same way you interface with programmed technology. Nature offers its surprises—and a richness computers are still far from reaching. If religion is losing some of its appeal, spirituality could possibly be on the rise, at least where people are not addicted to tribal gossip, computer games and technological gadgets. Beliefnet has a poll taken by Newsweek in 2005 that suggests spirituality, or at least the desire for spirituality in one's life is on the rise.

But I was struck by one result in the Newsweek poll. The first question was, "Can a good person who isn't of your religious faith go to heaven or attain salvation, or not?" It turns out that 91% of Catholics, who belong to a particularly formal religious organization, with lots of hierarchy and structures, believe good people of other faiths can go to heaven or attain salvation. That's a surprising degree of tolerance not found in other groups. Actually, only 22% of evangelical protestants said no to the question. I remember that 22% by way of people who approached me in my teens and twenties: they were hardcore and used hardcore sales techniques that put their beliefs in a poor light.

Over time, Americans appear to be getting more tolerant. That might be a factor in why Barack Obama was able to win and why McCain's vice presidential choice and his other proxies seemed so unappealing. We're in a time when the answers are not so clear. Perhaps those who claim to have all the answers are appearing more and more ridiculous to the young. Perhaps we're in a age where people need to find their own answers. That would be a step forward I believe. As long as the searching by the self is reasonably honest.

Edwards Campaign Clears Up Blogging Issue

On the one hand, I think John Edwards handled himself well in the episode concerning bloggers he had hired who, before they were hired, wrote posts some time ago that some on the right have chosen to interpret as anti-Catholic. On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain that liberal bloggers should be micro-managing campaigns from the outside; and of course it's a given that I have no use for right wingers who choose to wave their banner when moderates or liberals don't agree with them by getting into name calling. We have seen this recently in the assertion by right wing conservatives who seem to claim that if you're the slightest bit critical of Israel, you must be anti-semitic, even if you happen to support the right of Israel to exist or you happen to be Jewish (what do liberal Israelis get called these days when they disagree with the Israeli version of neoconservatives?).

Religion is a subject that needs to be handled with sensitivity by all sides and it doesn't always happen. And it's important to remember there are people on the right who are themselves very cynical about religion who aren't the least bit shy about manipulating religion for their own purposes. It's important to keep in mind that surveys of Americans on religious tolerance consistently show that a majority of Americans believe in the important of religious tolerance and they have tolerance for most of the major beliefs in the world.

MyDD has been covering the story and, to some extent perhaps, somewhat creating the story, but it's worth looking at their coverage to see how it was handled. Chris Bowers posted the Edwards statement; here's an excerpt along with Bowers' brief comment:

The statements of Senator John Edwards, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen in reference to their work as independent bloggers before joining the Edwards campaign are below.

Senator John Edwards:
"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in."

(snip)

Good. It looks like they are still on the campaign. It took a while, and it isn't perfect, but Edwards didn't cave. I am so relieved.

However, that still does not excuse the horrible media reporting that has been done on this subject. Expect more action on that front later today.

Edwards brings up a point and I agree with it. Free speech is fine but liberal bloggers need to understand the era that we're in and how satire is easily misinterpreted and sometimes not very distinguishable from writing that is actively intolerant of religion to the point of ridicule. There are religions of all types and there are nonbelievers of all kinds and there are agnostics and doubters in between who have serious views on the things that concern us all. Obviously, right wingers are looking for wedge issues to drive a political agenda that most Americans do not accept and all of us need to watch out for smear jobs against people like Edwards who are talking seriously and thoughtfully about moving our country forward again.

Chris Bowers has more posts on MyDD on all this; here's an excerpt that seems to get at the heart of several issues:

Great victories indeed. I am so relieved for Amanda and Melissa. I am just as relieved for John Edwards, who I really did not want to write off my list of potential candidates to support in the primary. Now, I will happily identify myself as an Edwards supporter. The only way I could imagine that changing is if another candidate shows a superior ability to help grow the movement. While there are a few more with that potential, no one has really come to close stepping up yet.

Still, despite our victories, this is far from over. First, because he refused to cave to right-wing pressure and establishment campaign advice, Edwards will receive a significant amount of criticism. When this happens, we need to remember that he stood with us during this fight, and so we have to stand with him against the forthcoming attacks. This goes for everyone, whether or not you are an Edwards supporter. He didn't throw us under the bus, and so we can't let him get thrown under the bus, even--especially--if another Democratic campaign is trying to do the throwing.

John Edwards has taken some strong stands lately that, in my mind, define leadership. Bloggers can help him and other Democratic candidates by being more thoughtful about some of the things they say. Most bloggers on the progressive side are responsible but even the most popular ones sometimes get carried away. I understand. These are difficult times. But copying the divisive methods of right wingers, or sometimes being overly clever without being wise, is no answer. I said this a long time ago and it's worth repeating: moderates, progressives and liberals need to raise their game.